State v. Dikeos, 544 P.3d 1020

Defendant Rees Gilmore Dikeos was convicted of second-degree murder after shooting an acquaintance, J, during an attempted gun transaction; Dikeos claimed self-defense, arguing J and his friends were plotting to rob him again after a prior day's robbery.
The state also charged Dikeos with tampering with a witness, but this charge was dismissed at trial when the state conceded insufficient evidence.
Key evidence (a stocking cap and firework box) found in the victim's trash was initially thought to have been discarded by investigating officers, but was later discovered post-trial in a police evidence locker after contradictory police testimony.
Dikeos moved both pre- and post-trial to dismiss or obtain a new trial, arguing due process violations (Brady/Trombetta/Youngblood standards) due to the state's mishandling and non-disclosure of the physical evidence; these motions were denied.
During trial, the state failed to disclose a conversation with a key witness involving a handgun, prompting a denied motion for mistrial on grounds of prejudice from late discovery.
On appeal, the main issues were denial of the motions to dismiss, new trial, mistrial, and the trial court's entry of a "dismissal" rather than an "acquittal" on the tampering charge.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Failure to preserve/disclose trash evidence (pre-)	Evidence not materially exculpatory; no bad faith.	Evidence key to self-defense theory; destroyed negligently/bad faith	Not "materially exculpatory"; no bad faith under Youngblood; no due process violation.
Denial of motion for new trial (rediscovery of evidence post-trial)	No material effect; jury already had photos/testimony.	New physical evidence/fingerprints/DNA could change result.	Newly discovered evidence not likely to change result; no abuse of discretion.
Denial of motion for mistrial (undisclosed interview)	Disclosure occurred at trial; insufficient prejudice.	Nondisclosure prejudiced defense; undermined confidence in verdict.	No actual prejudice; testimony elicited before jury; no abuse of discretion.
Entry of dismissal, not acquittal, on tampering charge	Judgment correct; not preserved error.	Legal error; judge required to grant acquittal after motion granted.	Error; trial court must enter acquittal, not dismissal. Remanded for correction.

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (establishes state’s duty to turn over exculpatory evidence to the defense)
California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (government must preserve materially exculpatory evidence)
Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (due process only violated for lost "potentially useful evidence" if state acted in bad faith)
State v. Disorbo, 54 Or. App. 877 (motion for new trial standards under Oregon law)
State v. Smith, 310 Or. 1 (mistrial rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
State v. Deloretto, 221 Or. App. 309 (Brady violations require reasonable probability of different outcome for relief)